|
Poll: Do you agree with Blizzard's vision for Starcraft?(Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Neutral (Vote): I don't know
The emphasis on harrassment brings a lot of frustration for me and I would still enjoy watching or playing Starcraft 2 without as much as much harassment going on. WoL was more simple but I don't think it was a bad game and I liked the more relaxed pace. I doesn't seem like Blizzard is trying to make a game that's fun to play, they're too focused on making a "good e-sport". You could very easily make Starcraft 2 harder by limiting unit selection to 12, removing MBS or auto mining and that would make the game more competitive at a professional level but most people would have more fun with the game if it was easier.
I would like the game to be more like WoL and I think LotV is going in the wrong direction with the emphasis on harassment and such. None of the other big e-sports have as big emphasis on the professional scene when patching the game. They focus on making fun gameplay but that's the opposite of the Starcraft team, the only thing they're looking at is the balance at the highest level with basically no consideration for how fun the changes they make will be.
I don't think Blizzard is doing a good job at patching Starcraft 2, I don't mean in terms of balance but in general. You could have a perfectly balanced game but it doesn't matter if it's a bad game. I think they need to change their approach of trying to perfect balance and start working on the whole game, change game design and make it a fun game that is easier to enjoy. WoL was more like this and it had a lot of success except for Blizzard's patch philosophy and lack of listening.
It is possible to grow Starcraft 2 but only if they work on the things that matter and that's what I want Blizzard to try. I think one of the main reason they're staying away from patching design is because they don't know what needs to be done but that's not a solution. It would be better for the players if they experimented more and tried to make Starcraft 2 the best it can possible be in every possible way. It is possible as long as they're listening to feedback from the community and the professional scene.
What they did in the LotV beta was basically just PR because when they removed macro mechanics for example, they never tried to adjust the game to those changes and tested way too briefly to produce any results. Some people might've thought it was worse without macro mechanics because bio wasn't viable then but that's only because they never tried to make it viable without macro mechanics.
That's why I think you can't take that as proof that patching game design won't show results. I think it's needed to make Starcraft a better game so I disagree with what Blizzard is doing (though I think they're doing an okay job at balancing Starcraft 2).
|
From my point of view LOTV is way better game. I mostly agree with the changes. Of course it is not perfect but at the moment it is in good place.
|
The emphasis on harass is really bad for the game actually. When Blizzard says harass creates some of the most entertaining situations it makes me really question what game they're watching. Especially when they create the Liberator, the most boring harass unit in existence to make it even easier to do massive worker damage.
What SC2 has always needed is a game wide damage nerf to make battles last longer. Not more worker harass, not hard counters and build order wins/loses. Make the battles take time and not be over as soon as it begins half the time. It'd be better for both viewers and players, since the majority of casual fans woud greatly appreciate not losing an army in 0.1 seconds.
|
LOTV certainly isn't perfect, but I would still prefer LOTV over WOL.
|
I do not agree with Blizzards vision.
They seem to ignore issues that are not pro level issues which makes the game less fun for most of the player base.
Most ladder player would like to have things like 1. Defenders advantage 2. Easier to not instantly lose your mineral line in a few seconds. 3. Not instantly losing most of your army because you looked away one second. 4. Better balanced game phases where no race have to play against a timer in order to win.
But Blizzard is moving in the opposite direction which is why the player base is shrinking.
Blizzard are good at what they do. But what they do is wrong and is damaging the popularity of the game.
|
The thing I hate about the harrass in Starcraft 2 is that they're so easy to use yet so hard to defend against. It's not fun when every Zerg goes mutalisk every game and is guaranteed to get damage done. Not everyone made mutalisk in WoL but it was still a strong playstyle and you would do well if you played well. It's more interesting when only the better players choose to harass and have the potential to do a lot with it but only if they play well. HotS TvZ was still kind of fun but there wasn't any choice to it. Blizzard had decided that this is the meta and basically the only thing determining if you win is your mechanics.
|
I don't agree with Blizzard's vision, but then I look at community suggestions and realise it could be so much worse.
|
Yes I have the same opinion as you MockHammill. I wish the community could make Blizzard change their approach. It's hard because a lot of people who care about this have left the game and some people who have stayed ignore the issues.
WidowMineHero I'm not saying WoL is a better game, it had design issues in PvP for example and Zerg was imbalanced but I still think the more relaxed pace and simplicity makes for a more fun game to play, and it was good for the community.
|
ZigguratOfUr what about the beta? That's where we got the new economy system and photon overcharge.
|
On June 26 2016 02:01 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: The emphasis on harass is really bad for the game actually. When Blizzard says harass creates some of the most entertaining situations it makes me really question what game they're watching. Especially when they create the Liberator, the most boring harass unit in existence to make it even easier to do massive worker damage.
What SC2 has always needed is a game wide damage nerf to make battles last longer. Not more worker harass, not hard counters and build order wins/loses. Make the battles take time and not be over as soon as it begins half the time. It'd be better for both viewers and players, since the majority of casual fans woud greatly appreciate not losing an army in 0.1 seconds. Pretty much this for me. Damage needs a 20% - 30% across the board
|
100% they are way too focused on the esport when people are leaving the game because it's too frustrating. Nydus worms, adept shades, oracles, liberator range, unkillable ultras... are some of the frustrating things to play against. If they would first have focused on making a fun game that people enjoy and then let the strategical variety come from the players (instead of trying to force it on us)...maybe more of the 250K people who were playing ladder in January would be playing than now (65K).
It's a fact that people won't want to play a fun game. The people who have stuck with it this long are people who enjoy competition (fun or not) or are people who have spent so much time on sc2 at this point that they are invested in the future of it. Also, the extremely slow pace of balance testing and patches is extremely frustrating. Especially how much emphasis is placed on Kespa feedback. If they would adopt a regular balanced patch schedule and not be afraid to make big changes with the knowledge that the change can always be removed if it skews game play too much.
|
Blizzard has always been like that, they only pay atention to win-loss ratios, not the gameplay.
|
On June 26 2016 02:12 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I don't agree with Blizzard's vision, but then I look at community suggestions and realise it could be so much worse.
Especially when people complain about them patching too slowly and completely forget or are ignorant about WoL where they reacted much more hastily, and people complained about them patching too quickly.
If Blizzard's vision is flawed, then the community doesn't really have any unified vision. (maybe slower but more battles and less emphasis on worker harassment)
|
WoL was a far superior game imo, LoTV is a fast paced mess. WoL had balance problems like immortal all in and broodlord infestor, but it was way more simple and streamlined it just lacked features that most modern games should have.
|
|
WoL was a far superior game imo, LoTV is a fast paced mess. WoL had balance problems like immortal all in and broodlord infestor, but it was way more simple and streamlined it just lacked features that most modern games should have.
WoL just needed touching up abit and balancing not the complete overhaul that is LoTV.
|
On June 26 2016 02:33 Aunvilgodess wrote: Yes. Git gud. Piss off idiot. I've been master league since 2013 but my skill is irrelevant to this discussion.
|
On June 26 2016 01:48 Adelull wrote: You could very easily make Starcraft 2 harder by limiting unit selection to 12, removing MBS or auto mining game if it was easier.
Are you actually suggesting those would be good changes for the game?
|
Wings of liberty was as good as it's ever going to get. A lot of people don't want to admit it, but facts are facts, viewership, playerbase, total prize pool and everything else was larger when the game first came out. Sad but oh well
|
On June 26 2016 02:43 Alluton wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 01:48 Adelull wrote: You could very easily make Starcraft 2 harder by limiting unit selection to 12, removing MBS or auto mining game if it was easier.
Are you actually suggesting those would be good changes for the game? No I'm saying those would be solutions if people actually wanted a harder, more competitive game. But most people don't want that so that wasn't a suggestion. What made you think it was?
|
|
|
|